Re: Comments on IM2000

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 08:04:11PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The problem with im2000 has always been that SMTP is the standard
> > mail protocol, and no one really wants to deal with implementing an
> > alternative.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:32:50AM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
> And conversely, there will be others who want to use it as a cleaner mail
> transport replacing SMTP, but keep their legacy IMAP applications with a
> proxy to interface to new architecture. Both paths are workable.

You are right, as a "within-enterprise" system, im2000' could probably
offer something early in the adoption cycle.

> I don't think any new transport will gain acceptance unless it has some
> tangible benefits, and probably the key one is anti-phishing - identifying
> the sender unambiguously, preferably with their E-mail address.

The best it can do is unambiguously identify the administrator of the
sending system.  Whether it unambiguously identifies the people using
that system is up to the administrator, and any system can host an
extremely large number of addresses.

> Another problem I have with IM2000 is the repeated retransmissions of
> receipt notifications, which may go on for maybe a month or more if the
> recipient is not checking their mail. But nobody is *really* going to make
> the RNA not have persistent storage; rebooting an RNA and losing a day's
> worth of notifications would be far too serious an event.

As long as repeated notifications are identical, redundant copies can be
deleted on the receiving side.

Ill behaved receipt notification sources can be ignored.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul